Case 2304669/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Mr S Payne v Escape Kent Limited — 2023
- Case reference
- 2304669/2022
- Decision date
- 1 September 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Downs Representation
- Venue
- London South
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr S Payne
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe case was heard by CVP at London South Employment Tribunal on 1 September 2023 before Employment Judge Downs. The claimant, Mr S Payne, appeared in person. The tribunal heard oral evidence from Mr Payne and Mr Summers for the respondent, submissions from Mr Payne and Mr Knell for the respondent, read the parties' documents and originating application, and listened to a recording of a conversation between Mr Payne and Mr Summers.
The tribunal dismissed the claim for automatic unfair dismissal. It also found well founded the claim that the respondent had refused to permit Mr Payne to exercise his right to a rest break on 20 October 2022. In addition, the respondent conceded that it was likely to owe Mr Payne some money by way of unlawful deduction of wages and said it had instructed its remuneration function to prepare payment.
The tribunal recorded that the respondent was content to pay £120 on a pragmatic basis as that appeared to cover the entirety of the sum owed. The judgment therefore ordered the respondent to pay Mr Payne £120 for unlawful deduction of wages and declared that the rest-break claim was well founded. No separate monetary award was stated for the rest-break claim.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The judgment records that the claim for automatic unfair dismissal was dismissed. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The respondent conceded it was likely to owe some wages, agreed a pragmatic payment of £120, and the tribunal ordered payment of £120 for unlawful deduction of wages. | Upheld | — | £120 |
| Working time regulations | The judgment found well founded the claim that the respondent refused to permit the claimant to exercise his right to a rest break on 20 October 2022, but no separate monetary sum was specified for that claim. | Upheld | — | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £120
- across all upheld claims
Official outcome judgment PDF
Gov.uk primary recordThe official judgment PDF on gov.uk contains the tribunal's outcome, reasoning, and any remedy details. Where this page does not yet show extracted outcomes for every claim, use the PDF as the authoritative source.
Published on gov.uk under the Open Government Licence v3.0.
How we got this data
Case essentials (reference, date, judge, venue, country, claim categories) are extracted from the structured metadata gov.uk publishes alongside each decision. Parties and monetary figures are extracted from the judgment PDF text. Key findings and per-claim outcomes require a second extraction pass that is not yet complete for this case — until then, the primary source linked above is the authoritative record. See full methodology.
Named in this case and want it removed? Submit a takedown request. The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.